Patna High Court
Tufani Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6331 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2015 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. TUFANI SINGH S/o Chandradeo Singh, R/o- Village- Chanda, P.S.-
Sikarhata, District- Bhojpur.
2. Md. Kutubuddin @ Tukubuddin @ Kutubuddin, S/o Gulam Rasaul, R/O-
Khedhi, P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Bhojpur.
3. Deo Kumar Singh @ Dev Kumar Singh S/o Ramsakal Singh R/o- Village-
M.B. Bagh, P.S.- Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.
4. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma. S/o Ramjee Prasad Verma R/O
Village- Panjabi Market, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan
Singh, learned APP along with Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the order dated
07.09.2018
passed in Cr. Rev. No.203 of 2017 by learned
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, as well as, the order dated
03.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Tr. no. 169 of 2017 arising out
of Ara Town P.S. Case No.349 of 2015, by which cognizance of
the offences has been taken under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341,
188, 353, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners
informs that after investigation the police has submitted the final
form, having found no offence. In absence of any evidence
against the other co-accused for similar allegation the
proceeding was dropped against them by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate,Bhojpur,Ara. He further submitted that in
spite of having no material collected in course of investigation
against the petitioners, who at the relevant time were holding
different posts in the school namely Rajkiya Madhaya
Vidhayala, Dharhari. and not even have participated in the
alleged protest, have been made accused. On these grounds,
learned counsel seeks interference of this Court with the order
dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara for which the petitioners have
preferred Cr. Rev. No.203 of 2017 and it was rejected vide order
dated 07.09.2018.
4. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, along with Mr. Ram
Priya Sharan Singh, learned APPs appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
State at the outset jointly submitted that no interference can be
made by this Court and to scuttle the trial, the petitioners have
filed the present quashing application, for which an order has
already been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara
in Cr. Rev. No.203 of 2017, which requires no interference of
this Court. He further submitted that the FIR in question has
been registered as Ara Town P.S. Case No.349 of 2015 under
sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 188, 353 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, against the accused persons namely Tufani Singh,
Md. Kutubuddin @ Tukubuddin, Dev Kumar Singh, Santosh
Kumar. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer
visited the place and recorded the prosecution occurrence,
statements of the witnesses, as well as, the informant. As per
the investigation, the allegations leveled against the petitioners
were found to be true in nature, and the supervision report also
substantiated the said allegations against the petitioners. He
further submitted that it is true that initially the students were
made accused along with teachers of the said school
(petitioners) but during the investigation, none of the
independent witness has stated active involvement of the
students rather all the witnesses have stated that on the
instigation of the teachers the students came on the road,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
therefore, police had submitted charge sheet against the
petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that on these grounds,
the charge sheet no.514 of 2016 dated 31.12.2016 was
submitted, after collecting the materials against the petitioners,
and as such, no interference is required by this Court.
5. Heard the parties.
6. It is well settled that in exceptional cases, in abuse
of process of law the High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC can quash criminal
proceedings. However, interference would only be justified
when complaint didn't disclose any offence or was patently
frivolous, vicarious or oppressive.
7. To analyze, as to whether, the offense as alleged in
the FIR is made out, I find it proper to deal with Section 147,
149, 341, 323, 353, 188 and 120B Indian Penal Code which
defines as under:
"Section 141: (Unlawful assembly) a group of five or more
people whose common object is to commit an offense. The
common object must involve one of the following: using criminal
force to intimidate a government or public servant, resisting a
law or legal process, committing mischief or criminal trespass,
or extorting property or a valuable security from someone.
Punishment: The punishment for being part of such an assembly,
after being commanded to disperse by a public servant, is
imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.
Section 147: (Punishment for rioting) Rioting occurs when an
"unlawful assembly" (five or more people with a common, illegal
objective) uses force or violence.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
Section 149: (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common object)--If an
offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the
members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is
guilty of that offence.
Section 341 (Wrongful Restraint) : Deals with preventing
someone from moving in any direction to which they are entitled
to proceed.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 month, or fine up to ₹500,
or both.
Section 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) : Pertains to inflicting
pain, bodily disease, or infirmity on another persons.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine up to ₹1,000, or
both.
Section 353 (Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant)
: Entails using assault or criminal force to obstruct a public
servant from discharging their official duties.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--
1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such
a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or
with both.
188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.
--
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public
servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is
directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order
with certain property in his possession or under his management,
disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or
tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully
employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to
two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to
human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or
affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
Explanation.-- It is not necessary that the offender
should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience
as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the
order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or
is likely to produce, harm.
8. The records based on materials and upon a plain
reading of the relevant provision, under which the complaint has
been lodged, it is evident that the essential ingredients of the
offence mainly under Sections 147, 149, 188, 341, 323, 353 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code are attracted only when such act
have been done, with an intention to use criminal force and
prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his public
duty.
9. The offence under above sections is made out only
when the unlawful assembly with a common object to cause riot
was without the ingredients of Section 147 of Indian Penal
Code. The Apex court as in case of Charan Singh and Others
v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in, 2004(2) SCR 925,
wherein in paragraph no. 13, the court held as under:
"... Mere presence in an unlawful assembly
cannot render a person liable unless there was a common
object and he was actuated by that common object and that
object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common
object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused
persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section
149...."
10. Further, the Apex Court in case of Lalji v. State
of U.P., reported in, (1989) 1 SCC 437, in para 8, observed as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
under: -
"Common object of the unlawful assembly
can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms
used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or
before scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be
deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case."
11. It is the case of the petitioners that offences under
Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC are also not made out. A
reading of the above Sections clearly shows that if a public
servant, while discharging his duties, is attacked or any injury
caused to public servant in the discharge of his duties or when
any public servant prevented or deterred from performing his
duties or when any public servant assaulted or any criminal
force used against the public servant while he is executing his
duties as such public servant, then only the above offences
would attract. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
accused caused hurt or assault to the informant or any of the
police officer, while they were performing their duties, with
intent to prevent them or deter them from discharging their
duties. The offences under Section 188 of the IPC is also not
attracted as the petitioners did not intend to produce any harm
in the present case.
12. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the necessary
ingredients to attract Sections 323 and 353 of the I.P.C. are not
present in the present case. The fact that the petitioners were in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
a large crowd, which may raise some suspicion, but such
suspicion could not be considered as proof/ evidence upon
which the accused could be convicted. The law in this regard is
well settled as in case of Madan Singh v. State of Bihar
reported in [2004] 4 SCC 622, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that "mere presence in an unlawful assembly does
not render any persons automatically liable unless there is
evidence to suggest that they were motivated by common
objects set out in Section 141 Cr.P.C. Thus, the presence and
sharing of a common unlawful object is a must to invoke
Section 149 IPC. Mere presence is not enough."
13. In Kapil Aggarwal and ors. vs V Sanjay
Sharma and ors. AIR 2021 SC 1241: AIRONLINE 2021 SC
99 the Apex Court observed that Section 482 of the CrPC (528
of the BNSS) is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that
criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons
of harassment.
14. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the parties and the allegations made in the FIR, as well
as, the fact that the constitutional right as guaranteed under
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India gives democratic right
to the citizens to protest peacefully. The genesis of the protest
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
was in the background of required amount of scholarship, which
was not given to the students. Though the FIR was lodged
against other co-accused, who are students of a government
school namely Rajkiya Madhaya Vidhayala, Dharhari and the
petitioners, who are government teachers and because of the
said FIR and charge sheet submitted against them, they are
facing the criminal prosecution. In respect of other co-accused
the police has submitted the final final form. In such
circumstances, in absence of any information contained in the
order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Tr. no. 169 of 2017
arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.349 of 2015, without any
material being discussed against the petitioners, which was
collected in course of investigation, prima facie, it appears that
the revisional Court has also not looked into the materials
available and only having reiterated certain background facts,
has affirmed the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. The exercise of
democratic right cannot be scuttled by lodging FIR against the
citizens. As such, the order taking cognizance dated 03.04.2017
and order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.203
of 2017 are hereby set-aside and quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2019 dt.14-10-2025
15. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.10.2025
Transmission Date NA
